Almost
everyone I’ve known who’s been involved in events important enough to make the
newspapers has been disappointed, even angered, by the superficiality of the
coverage. It’s inevitable: Information is being conveyed to a general public
that knows less about the subject than the reporters, who in turn know less
than the experts and those directly involved.
Reporters like to say that “News is only
the first rough draft of history” (attributed to the journalist Alan Barth, writing in
1943). They like the connection to history, but I tend to focus on the “first
rough draft” part; generally, it’s silly to complain about the inadequacies of
newspaper stories. Still, there are better and worse first drafts. Consider the
story in the June 1 New York Times under
the headline “After
5 Months of Sales, Colorado Sees the Downside of a Legal High.”
I paused to read the article because I favor
marijuana legalization and because my younger boy now lives in Boulder (but
doesn’t inhale). I found the article frustrating, not because of what it said
about marijuana but because of what it said about journalism.
To begin with, when the headline says
“sees the downside,” then there should be a real downside. “Sees” is one of
those words that implies the truth of what’s seen. But the article presents
little hard evidence of a downside and—after a time—admits as much: The subhead
on the jump reads “Anecdotes, but scarce data, about the effect of a marijuana
law.”
After an opening statement about “a series
of recent problems as cautionary lessons for other states flirting with
loosening marijuana laws,” the reporter moves to a sensational incident:
Richard Kirk,, after eating marijuana-laced cookies, began raving about the end
of the world, grabbed a handgun from a family safe, and killed his wife,
Kristine. There’s a photo of Mrs. Kirk’s coffin being loaded into a hearse. (You
later read that Mr. Kirk may also have consumed prescription medication for
back pain.)
The article continues: “Some hospital
officials say they are seeing growing numbers of children and adults sickened
by potent does of edible marijuana. Sheriffs in neighboring states complain
about stoned drivers streaming out of Colorado and through their towns.”
This is followed by a quote that “by any
measure, the experience of Colorado has not been a good one unless you’re in
the marijuana business,” which you then discover comes from the executive
director of a group opposing legalization. I understand that reporters have to
go to spokespersons, but it would be better if they noted the source before the quote, so that readers would
know that what they are about to read is, as evidence, worthless. (There are
opposing statements by legalization proponents later on, but many readers may
not get that far.)
You reach the truly important fact in
paragraph five: “Despite such anecdotes, there is scant hard data. Because of
the lag in reporting many health statistics, it may take years to know legal
marijuana’s effect—if any—on teenage drug use, school expulsions or the number
of fatal car crashes.”
The article does contain some valuable
information: Since January, when the State Police began tracking the number of
stoned drivers, “marijuana-impaired drivers have made up about 1.5% of all
citations for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.” Also, “crime in
Denver is down by about 10 percent, though it is impossible to say whether
changes to marijuana laws played any role in that decline.” The head of the
Drug Enforcement Agency, Michele Leonhart, told a U.S. Senate panel that Kansas
officials “had tallied a 61 percent increase in seizures of marijuana that
could be traced to Colorado.” However, the article notes that “according to the Kansas Highway Patrol,
total marijuana seizures fell to 1,090 pounds from 2,790 pounds during the
first four months of the year, a 61% decline.” (Could Ms. Leonhart have mixed
up her “increase”s and “decline”s?) Finally, “so far this year, nine children have
ended up at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora [a Denver suburb] after
consuming marijuana, six of whom got critically sick. In all of 2013, the
hospital treated only eight such cases.” (It’s not clear whether the “such
cases” refers to merely consuming marijuana or getting critically sick.)
One implication of the article should give
even legalization advocates pause: Apparently
it’s possible to pack quite a wallop into a marijuana cookie. As a result,
the article informs us, Colorado has tightened labeling and packaging rules for
edible marijuana, and is considering limiting the amount of THC (the
psychoactive component of marijuana) that can be packed into a single cookie.
“Even supporters of legalization … say Colorado needs to pass stricter rules
about edible marijuana.”
I’m not saying the story was bad. It had
some useful information, especially if you read through to the end. And I’m not
opposed to anecdotes; as the saying goes, the
plural of anecdote is data. (Sometimes turned into “the plural of anecdote
isn’t data”; I prefer the first version.) But to create a “story,” the reporter
(and whoever supplied the headline) had to create an interesting narrative, and
“Anecdotes, but scarce data” doesn’t make an enticing come-on. So we have an
opening that strongly implies that there are real problems with legalization, followed
by attempts to walk that conclusion back.
Even the anecdotes seem weak. The domestic
shooting (and the report later in the article of a young man who leapt to his
death off a hotel balcony after eating a marijuana cookie) are examples of a
logical fallacy so ancient it even has a Latin name: post hoc ergo propter hoc (“after
this, therefore because of this”). And there are lots of questions: How much
marijuana, and what else, had the people ingested? (No toxicological evidence
is presented.) Were there any pre-existing psychological conditions? (Again, no
information.) And most important, but most difficult to judge, the
counterfactual: If they hadn’t taken marijuana, what other drug(s) might they
have consumed, and with what consequences? People are going to get high, so the
important question is: Will more get high, and to worse effect, if marijuana is
substituted for other psychoactive media?
Anything that enters your body, from
penicillin to peanuts, can harm you. It all depends on the particular
interaction. I don’t want to play down the dangers, so here’s an anecdote from
my own experience: A million years ago, when I was in college, some of my
friends heard that you could get high on a common type of flower seed (I’ve
forgotten which one). They bought seed packets at a garden store, chowed down,
and for the most part had an enjoyable experience. But one of my friends suffered
a terrifying psychotic episode—his first, as far as we know—that led to his temporary
hospitalization and that affected him for some time.
There are
dangers to psychoactive drugs. No one should be surprised by that. We’ve had
enough experience (not merely anecdotal, although the anecdotes will do) with
alcohol to have a good idea of its downsides, but have decided that
legalization is better than prohibition. But weighing the pros and cons for marijuana,
and most of the other stuff we might eat or inhale, requires going
beyond the merely anecdotal. That’s not something you’re likely to get from
a first rough draft of history.
—Stan
No comments:
Post a Comment